Monday 25th March

Time: 1pm – 3pm.

Place: 12.02.19 Charles Street Building, Sheffield Hallam University. City Campus

This is on the second floor of the Charles Street Building which is just next to Arundel where we held meetings last year.

Speaker 1: Petra Anders

Title: Promoting Inclusive Theatre Work and Dance Practice


This presentation discusses how Niko von Glasow’s play Alles wird gut [Everything will be Alright], the film Resilience and Inclusion: Dancers as Agents of Change, which is part of to the British Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) funded project InVisible Difference: Dance, Disability and Law, and Ohad Naharin’s Gaga Movement Language contribute to inclusive theatre work and dance practice.

I investigate how rehearsal dynamics change, if the director of a play or choreographer of a dance performance are themselves disabled, and not only (some of) the actors or dancers. The inclusive potential of Naharin’s Gaga Movement Language, on the other hand, is based on in the fact that this method was not created for people with disabilities in order to give them the chance to dance, but can be used by dance professionals with and without disabilities as well as amateur dancers with and without disabilities.

All three approaches are stunning examples of how theatre work and dance practice (can) become more and more inclusive and diverse.

Speaker 2: Ciaran Burke

Title: “Repeat after me…”: dysfluency and the pursuit of gestalt.


Within social science research, identifying as a particular type of researcher carries with it certain assumptions about an individual’s personality type and approach to knowledge or epistemology. A researcher who opts for a quantitative approach to data collection and analysis is often understood to be more “scientific” or “good with numbers” whereas the qualitative researcher is a “people person” who enjoys talking with people and getting to know their respondents on a personal level in pursuit of understanding rather than explaining a phenomena.  Thus, to be a qualitative researcher, the researcher is expected to enjoy talking and be able to talk on demand without hesitation or pause, in other words be fluent.  The friction that this paper wishes to unpack is that between the assumption of ease of speech and dysfluency, in particular stammering, in the context of life history research.

Life history research covers a broad range of approaches to data collection and analysis. However, a particularly clear and at the same time dogmatic approach within this school is the biographical narrative interview method (BNIM).  Stemming from grounded theory, BNIM developed by Fritz Schütze (1992, 2008) and Rosenthal (2003, 2005) and Miller (2000, 2005) has offered an opportunity to conduct ethnographic research within an interview setting (Burke, 2011). As outlined in many of these texts, the BNIM has a set of very strict rules which surround the principle of “gestalt”, essentially preserving an individual’s narration and protecting it from as long as possible from the researchers’ interference.  Two central rules which allow this to happen are:

  • Once the initial narration question is asked, the researcher cannot interject or direct the narration either verbally or physically.
  • Once the initial narration has finished the researcher can ask questions but covering topics in the order the narration presented them and using the precise language used by the respondent. It is this second rule which presents issues for researchers who have a disability which affects fluency of speech. In this chapter I will first outline the sociological literature concerning speech dysfluency building on previous application of social theory to consider why stammering is such an issue within communication and why is it a site of ridicule and a marker of devaluation of that individual. I will then briefly set out the current landscape, within the UK, for academics who stammer. The chapter will then turn to outlining the specific mechanics of the BNIM and the rationale for its application within my own research. I will reflect on the issues I faced when balancing a lack of fluency and adhering to the strict rules of the BNIM. In addition, I will discuss ways in which the gestalt can be preserved within the BNIM while not requiring researchers to keep to the strict language parameters the method currently demands. As such, I will provide guidelines for future researchers who wish to engage with this method but would initially feel unable to meet its demands.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s